OK after starting another thread in the Custom and Handmade knives forum I was provide a link to this thread!
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/473592-Real-Loveless-Food-for-Thought
This is the orgional questions asked by that thread:
So my question is; how many of you could identify like knives from the top five or so Loveless style knife makers? Are there obvious differences between each? What are some? Obviously, the first giveaway, for a less skilled maker are the grinds, however I find the grinds very close between the top few.
After spending time this morning reading thru the link above and its 6page connection to the Loveless Style. Well let’s just say it is a passionate subject. So I am sure some will agree as to what I am about to say and as many others will disagree!
The following is not meant to agree or disagree with any one or to talk about anyone or their knives, famous or not. If it makes you offended then I suggest you may need to look at the reason you are offended.
However for me this still goes back to my original question.
What is it about a knife that makes it a LS or “Loveless Style”. From what I have been able to actually find out, it may be easier to say than to define
The other thread rambles back and forth as to a lot about the person and how much of the LS is Loveless Style and how much is collaboration. Collaboration is really something I did not know a lot about till reading the other thread.
Some traits of the LS that seem define more the style of the LS than others have come forward in my reading. I will attempt to list some of them, as I see them!
Collaboration- of a LS has to do with the actual knife itself. While it is generally accepted that Loveless had his own style, fit and finish of the man who actually was working on the knife in Loveless’s shop has to do with the final finish. There are examples of the traits that show thru on a given knife that make that will define that knife as a LS finished by a given smith.
Shape- very hard to define, but it has as much to do with the overall knife as a given shape of a particular piece. In other words Loveless had certain traits that define one of his knives. Use of bolsters, chosen steel, etc., etc., but the one thing that stuck in my mind is the shape of the handle but again it is all these things together that make it a LS!
stock removal - LS knives are stock removal and I have no intention in getting into the age old discussion about forged and stock removal.
Blade grind – This is from the other thread: The grinds, fit, and finish of a Loveless knife is unique to that maker. When you examine the best of the best(Kressler, Johnson, Herron, the Japanese makers....) each has a slightly different style. Loveless knives are so deeply hollow ground that Bob has actually gone through the other side on occasion. The grind follows the belly of the knife; there are very few "straight" grinds on a Loveless knife.
Ricasso – I have noticed that there is no drop down from the end of the plunge cut or cutting edge. The cutting edge seems to transitions into the ricasso more or less straight on. Also and I am not sure if this is LS trait or some copying his work but have noticed some with a choil
Handles – This is from the other thread: handle subtleties to the grip contour. Where the palm swell is placed. It is missed the most by the others. The sweep into the guard. Both on the tang, and the contour blending from the spine area of the tang to the sides of the grip and palm swell. Depth of the concave contour extending from the palm swell to the butt. The thickness to the tang. The contour of the little finger area of the lower tang and the blending going up the side of the grip to the flared grip, and the gentle curve from the bottom of the tang and the top of the tang. It changes at different locations of the handle. Especially the bottom of the grip to the center.
I find that the terms “LS” or “Loveless inspired” are quite possibly being bantered around by some makers who would like to sell a particular knife. Because even some of those who have chosen to use the term LS to describe on of their knives, can say it much more easily than if they were forced to sit down and actually define the term LS, or what it is about their particular piece that warrants the term LS.
I am sure there is more criteria that defines the term LS and I would love to hear more from anyone that wants to list such items. However after doing this research I think I will have to refrain from the using of the term “Loveless Style or Loveless inspired” to describe one of my knives.
Not only because at this time my quality of work does not reach up to that level. The idea of wanting to be copying another’s work does not appeal to me. Now I would not be so naïve as to think that we are all producing originals out there.
For example when I first was starting in knife making I designed a knife blade that I was sure was totally unique! I had never seen anything like that shape that I could remember. Then one day I was reading thru some info on the net and run across a picture of blade that had been dated back to the late 16th century. It was almost identical to the shape of the blade I was sure that no one had ever done!. That burst my bubble and I realized there are few true original ideas.
However there is original work and even though my design of a given blade may be similar to another. The end product is mine and that is why I think I would be hesitant to referring to one of my blades as a “Loveless Style”. Not to demean anyone or look down on anyone who has made such a stipulation, I want to try and achieve my own uniqueness!!!!!!!!!!
.
